Tort Reform Reports

I also draft reports responding to actuarial analyses that purport to demonstrate that if a law limiting liability is enacted—such as capping damages, or limiting joint and several liability--then insurance rates will drop by a certain amount; or that if a law expanding consumer protections is enacted, then insurance rates will increase by a certain amount. The problem with those analyses is that they’re based not on objective hard data but rather on not-necessarily-reasonable actuarial assumptions.

Relevant questions regarding these analyses include:

* What has actually happened when the proposed changes have been enacted in the past?

* Are the report’s conclusions consistent with the data compiled by the National Association of Insurance Commissioners and State Insurance Departments?

* Are the techniques the actuary has used to estimate ultimate payments reasonable?

* When changes like those being proposed were enacted in the past, did insurers reflect savings from those changes in their rate filings?

* Are the statements insurers have made to their shareholders or in their Annual Statements consistent with what they tell the legislature and the public regarding the proposed changes?

I’m happy to evaluate any analysis of proposed changes in the law that purports to demonstrate that those changes will either increase or reduce insurance rates.